Smt. Leema vs Sri P. Suraj Kumar

A.N. Venugopala Gowda

The petitioner filed Crl. Misc. No. 4/2010 in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Traffic Court - IV, Bangalore, against the respondent-.. IA No. 1 was filed therein under Sections 20 and 23(2) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, seeking interim maintenance of Rs. 20,000/-. Considering the record of the case and the rival contentions, learned Magistrate, by an order dated 25.1.2011 allowed the IA No. 1 and directed the respondent to pay maintenance of Rs. 2,000/- to the petitioner from the date of petition till disposal of Crl. Misc. No. 4/2010. The respondent-husband questioned the said order in Crl.A.No. 131/2011 in the Sessions Court, Bangalore City. The learned Appellate Judge allowed the appeal and set aside the order impugned by a judgment dated 11.7.2011. Questioning the legality of the said judgment and to set aside the same, the original petitioner-wife has filed this criminal revision petition. Heard the learned advocate on both sides and perused the records.

Two reasons have weighed with the learned Appellate Judge, to pass the impugned judgment, namely; (i) that there is an order of acquittal in a case filed by the wife for the offences under Sections 498-A and 506 of IPC and (2) that the original petitioner-wife has voluntarily in-capacitated herself of earning after the marriage.

Learned advocate for the respondent-husband submitted that, Ex. P11 shows that the original petitioner-wife is still in employment and has been earning. According to the Learned Counsel, in proof of the said contention, Ex. P11 has been produced before the Trial Court.

The impugned judgment does not even make a reference to Ex. P11. That apart, C.C.No. 15780/2007 filed by the wife against the husband alleging commission of offence under Sections 498-A and 506 of IPC is still pending on the file of 8th Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore. There is misreading of the record. In para 14 of the impugned judgment, it has been observed that;

Admittedly the case filed by the petitioner against her husband has been acquitted under Sections 498-A and 506 of IPC.

Since the impugned judgment has been passed in disregard to the evidence brought on record by the parties and that there is also misdirection, the same is vitiated and hence liable to be set aside.

In the result, the petition is allowed and the impugned judgment is set aside. The matter is remitted to the Appellate Court for consideration in accordance with law.

The parties are directed to appear before the Appellate Court on 20.9.2012. The Appellate Court is directed to decide the appeal in accordance with law, expeditiously and before 30.11.2012.

Contentions of both the parties are kept open for consideration.